This is a discussion on How often have you had to get lucky to end up winning an MTT? within the online poker forums, in the Tournament Poker section; I'm reading a few books on tournament poker right now, and a lot of them mention that in one way or another, you have to

I'm reading a few books on tournament poker right now, and a lot of them mention that in one way or another, you have to win a few hands you outright shouldn't have.

I'm wondering, have any of you won an MTT without that happening? If not, how did that particular winning hand play out?

#2

28th August 2014, 12:17 PM

ammytyagi [515]

Poker at: full tilt

Once you are a big stack , you starting playing more hands and win some hand with weak starting hard. To win a big MTT you will aleays need luck in your favour.

#3

28th August 2014, 12:25 PM

RamdeeBen [7,746]

Online Poker at: pokerstars

Game: Mixed Games

This really depends on the tournament structure and how many players are in it.

For example; if we was playing like a 400 man MTT with deep stacks then one can assume you don't need to get lucky much to go on and win. In faster tournaments though like say for example we are playing a 10k field BIG 11 tournament on poker stars. There are going to be times where you have to get lucky to flip for your tournament life or get it in with like AJ VS AQ and suckout. You're basically forced to go with worse hands when spots come around. There are many times where have a big stack and a short stack goes all-in with a better hand but you have the odds to call etc where you might get there and suckout. There are times you get coloured like vs big stacks for all your chips with like KK vs AA and hit a set for example..tons of spots come up that happens.

I've won numerous tournaments (deep structure ones) where I've never been all in for my tournament life and I've won tournaments where faster structure ones where I've sucked out for my tournament life numerous times.

Basically, the faster the structure the higher the variance thus more all-ins and suckouts. The deeper we play and longer each levels there are, the less likely you will see as many suckouts. Just adjust accordingly to the game type you're playing.

#4

28th August 2014, 12:44 PM

Zorba [28,922]

Game: nudetwister

You need some luck to go your way to win.

#5

28th August 2014, 12:52 PM

10058765 [6,177]

Online Poker at: Pokerstars

Game: Mixed

What are hands you shouldn't have won ? There are none....
What's meant basically is you're often gonna play hands where you start as a dog, still winning them because of hitting flop, turn or river.
I don't think anyone has ever won a tournament without playing hands , being a dog at the beginning of the hand.
Because we have to think in handranges and play effective stacks we'll pretty often play hands in which we're behind.

#6

28th August 2014, 1:32 PM

hffjd2000 [2,329]

Poker at: fulltilt

Game: holdem

You have to be lucky at least 3x to win at MTT.

And those times, you are dog preflop, all chips in the middle.

#7

28th August 2014, 1:58 PM

theRaven68 [1,302]

Online Poker at: available

Game: nl holdem

re: Poker & How often have you had to get lucky to end up winning an MTT?

funny, when i had won Mtt at 770, i did it with 2 4 d, i never play that poor hand but that time i did.

#8

28th August 2014, 3:17 PM

TeUnit [1,923]

Poker at: PokerStars

Game: holdem, sng,

think in almost every mtt, the winner probably got "lucky" at least once, but that being said Michael Jordan was- lucky(what happens when hard work meets preparation)

#9

28th August 2014, 3:25 PM

Lekoo [100]

Online Poker at: Pokerstars

Game: holdem

Regardless of the tournament and your poker skills, when it comes to winning a MTT you need luck. Always. Because we do need luck even when we are favourite pre flop ( lets say KK vs JJ shove ). If he get the Jack you are doomed in most cases. So yes, u need luck always.

#10

28th August 2014, 4:26 PM

PapaC [2,755]

Poker at: Full Flush

Game: Holdem

Everyone needs luck pre-flop because if your hand don't come to the board then someone elses has. But then again, after the flop, winning the hand depends on how you play it. Some players who make a small pair on the flop can be run off of them with a large bet, but there are those too that won't run with even 22 and every card on the board will beat them. So yeah you better have your lucky hat on when you play MTTs

#11

29th August 2014, 5:27 AM

tARsh [212]

Online Poker at: Merge

Game: NLHE

You don't have to "suck out" to win an mtt.
But the perspective on luck is varied... when you don't have to suck out to win that is insanely lucky.
Luck; rather chaos rules all... the variance we can ride to a degree.
A varying one at that; it remains unique to each individuals interpretation and actuation of the game. Better and worse after a certain level become arbitrary. Many unique interpretations while they perhaps do not carry a fuller or better understanding of the game may yield better short and long term fiscal results.

#12

29th August 2014, 8:31 AM

revskip [74]

Poker at: Carbon

Game: Hold em

I've never had a tournament where I didn't need to get at least a little lucky to make the final table. Every MTT I have won I got lucky at least 3x, although not always in the sense of being all-in and way behind.

Sometimes just running really well with coin-flip type situations is all the luck you need but when you consider that you might be in 5 or 6 of those situations and you win them all you have to admit you had luck on your side.

#13

29th August 2014, 9:24 AM

n3rv [669]

Yes you need luck to win an MTT but you still need to play well...

Examples of luck when I have won MTTs are...

Running an under-pair into an over-pair and still winning:

E.g. One time I ran 66 into AA and hit quads... but please understand that it was still the right play with the amount of big blinds, and I had bad beats earlier on in the tourney.

I also hit better cards heads-up at the final table but was still patient enough to wait for them.

Another time I won a tourney, the day before it I went out of it after losing 2 coin-flips in a row and a 60/40. The next day I played again and won a 30% situation and went on to play well and win.

The reason you need to play well is because it is the only constant thing you can control in poker. You will have a long time of down-swings, so when variance does finally turn your way - enough for you to win a tourney - you still need to capitalise on it.

You can't win an MTT without an upswing in variance at some stage in my opinion... this could be an upswing in the cards you get, the opponent types you play, or the results of each hand - actually it is the reason you should be positive if you are ever card dead at the start of an MTT. As long as you hang in there somehow, a better situation will come, at a more crucial time when it is worth more chips.

#14

29th August 2014, 9:55 AM

thefwa [93]

Poker at: carbon

Game: NL Hold'em

re: Poker & How often have you had to get lucky to end up winning an MTT?

I'm starting to see what kind of luck it is,
Earlier today I placed 4th in an MTT, but that wouldn't have happened if my AQo hit the river flush against a player with trip kings.
And then ended up getting sucked out quite a bit when somebodies 10 8 beat my AA (he went all in preflop, cost me half my stack).
I had the lead on the tourney a good third of the time, but I'd say 30% of my stack was made up of getting lucky on a worse hand than somebody else's.

What percentage of your stack would you say is due to 'luck' when chip leader?

I noticed in the earlier stages of a tournament, that a fish would be dominating the lead with extremely lucky river cards and complete donk plays, and some of them get lucky enough to get to the money by bullying in the later rounds.

The ones that annoy me when they make it to the money are the players with VPIP's of 65-80% and i'm here thinking "How are they still here???"

#15

29th August 2014, 10:23 PM

Fuffufnick [88]

IMHO there are are sorts of luck in mtt poker. Whether you are ever all in is lucky in itself insomuch as one may never have had a critical hand against a larger stack that put you all in. Add to that seat placement, receiving some good cards, making some hands that hold up and having opponents with enough to call and some good situations to steal are just a few. That said, though I've seen some luckboxes run deep I don't see how you can win on luck alone. Even if you're a card rack you still have to play well, get good value on your value hands and not spew off on bad bluffs and second bests.

#16

29th August 2014, 11:13 PM

zarzar78 [467]

Poker at: pokerstars

Game: holdem

It depends on the tournaments structure :

- i have won two premier league tournaments in a row at pokerstars ( more than 400 entrants in each ) without taking a big risk and playing just good hands : i had never been in the top 5 chipleaders just at the final table

I have noticed too that in 888 poker, i have a terrible upswings and downswings, i can get 8 winnings hands in a raw letting me being the chipleader after 10 loosings hands ( AA kk AK etc... ) so out of the tournament without getting 1 cent

#17

30th August 2014, 3:22 AM

GWU73 [619]

Online Poker at: ACR

Game: NLHE PLO LHE

You don't have to suck out but you do need to be lucky. Lets say you play 440 hands and get AA and KK 2 times each. In each case you were fortunate enough to get all in before the flop vs a smaller pair. That is 4 times you got all in with an 80-85% chance to win, AND a 15-20% chance of loosing each time. Having good luck is often just the absence of bad luck.

#18

30th August 2014, 2:02 PM

SwiftHax [367]

Poker at: PokerStars

Game: NL Holdem

It means you'll win hands when you weren't a favorite to do so. KK vs AA or AK vs KK. You'll be getting it in with all of these hands and if you run into one another it's a cooler and sometimes get lucky to suck-out. Also when shortstacked, you'll be shoving much looser and once you get called, you'll often end up being at a disadvantage, so you'll be needing to luck thus if you win, it's considered winning a hand you shouldn't have.

#19

30th August 2014, 8:02 PM

missjacki [2,347]

Online Poker at: ACR

Game: NLHE, Big-O

I play a lot of live tournaments in the 100-500 person range and I'd say that to outright win these things you will need to win at least a couple of flips (a version of luck) and usually there will be 1 big suckout in there too....AQ beats QQ or you semi bluff all in with a flushdraw and gutshot and get called by a set and then bink one of your outs....those kinds of confrontations simply MUST happen to build the stacks big enough to make it to the final table.

I also play a lot of STTs where I usually just play well and don't have to get my stack in behind almost ever, and even flips are rare enough due to ICM and fold equity....

#20

31st August 2014, 6:21 PM

Jpetro [78]

You are going to have to get lucky for sure. It really depends on the structure of the mtt to determine how much luck is involved. The deep stacked structure will not require as much luck. The shallow mtt's require much more.

#21

31st August 2014, 6:48 PM

missjacki [2,347]

Online Poker at: ACR

Game: NLHE, Big-O

re: Poker & How often have you had to get lucky to end up winning an MTT?

Originally Posted by thefwa

I'm reading a few books on tournament poker right now,

also, regarding this statement. I love poker books, I've read a bunch, but it worries me that you're reading "a few" simultaneously. Poker is not something can can be downloaded quickly by soaking up large amounts of information in a short amount of time.

First you read a book, then you play some hands and try to apply things from that book. often times your game initially suffers while you perfect these new "moves" and concepts. That's normal and OK and part of the learning process. you add in a few new things to your game at a time and spend a little while "mastering" that concept or skill.

If you are reading multiple books then you will either be adding too much change to your game all at once, or you will be forced to ignore some important things because you can't do it all at once, and sometimes different books present competing ideas which is OK unless you're trying to learn them both at the same time....then your game can get schizophrenic in a hurry.

I'd recommend: read 1 book. make a few notes or highlights on new strategies and tactics you want to try out. play some hands. post some trouble hands in the hand analysis section. play some more hands. post some more hands. Now re-read either the whole book, or the sections that your made notes on, or at least just re-read your notes. Now repeat the above process. play some hands. post some hands.

NOW you might be ready to pick up a different poker book/author and see what he can bring to your game. But don't try to do too much all at once.

#22

31st August 2014, 7:31 PM

jj20002 [778]

Poker at: pokerstars

Game: holdem

to win a mtt you need all the things come to your side

in a slow mtt with a deepstack maybe you need less but still, you need the sets to be in your side not against, the projects with big pots and incomplete projects to be in the other side as well, also you need to bluff and not to be bluffed, also you should be dealt a lot of playable hands like pockets, aces, broadways suited connectors and quite often you will hit the board and get rewarded with big pots, also you need tables where you take the lead so you can steal the blinds, and so on,

now if you play a lot of tourneys there are a few you will run in that way I describe above, you will lose smaller hands but always your stack will cover your opponent`s so you are not going to be busted and at the end of the day you will be seated in the final table, and it will happen again until you reach the heads up and again until you win it all

unfortunately there is no magic recipe and it not depends totally on you (well yes, depends on your patience to wait for the right moment or the right tourney but you only will realize it when is all happened)

there are moments that you can feel it and then you get that pocket kings and you know it will happen, there are few players left, and this lag player is stealing blinds like crazy and here he comes again, you think for a moment, your kings wait, you think, 3bet? shove? you have the bad feeling, you know you want to win it and the drought, you know you need to stop this lag guy stealing blinds, you dont have too much time to decide, you take a deep breath and shoot... and yes at the end of the day a lot is reduced to luck but that is life and poker is part of it

Most of the time when I get knocked out if a tourney I have been sucked out on. Even in 45 man sng I get sucked out on a lot and constant coolers and bad beats. So in my opinion you have to be lucky to win a tournament, skill will help you get far but variance will.rear it's ugly head at some point you have to have the stack to deal with it. I have yet to play a tourney where I am the guy I'm god mode knocking people out left right and centre. I'm sure it'll come one day

#26

3rd September 2014, 7:30 AM

Mordecoke [359]

Poker at: ACR/BOL/INTE

Game: HOLDEM&OMAHA

I usually get lucky a couple of times. Or in other words winning flips!
You sometimes will suckout once or twice too!
It just depends on the stack you have etc.

#27

3rd September 2014, 8:14 AM

joe777 [2,698]

Atleast one time.

#28

4th September 2014, 9:43 AM

thefwa [93]

Poker at: carbon

Game: NL Hold'em

re: Poker & How often have you had to get lucky to end up winning an MTT?

Originally Posted by missjacki

also, regarding this statement. I love poker books, I've read a bunch, but it worries me that you're reading "a few" simultaneously. Poker is not something can can be downloaded quickly by soaking up large amounts of information in a short amount of time.

First you read a book, then you play some hands and try to apply things from that book. often times your game initially suffers while you perfect these new "moves" and concepts. That's normal and OK and part of the learning process. you add in a few new things to your game at a time and spend a little while "mastering" that concept or skill.

If you are reading multiple books then you will either be adding too much change to your game all at once, or you will be forced to ignore some important things because you can't do it all at once, and sometimes different books present competing ideas which is OK unless you're trying to learn them both at the same time....then your game can get schizophrenic in a hurry.

I'd recommend: read 1 book. make a few notes or highlights on new strategies and tactics you want to try out. play some hands. post some trouble hands in the hand analysis section. play some more hands. post some more hands. Now re-read either the whole book, or the sections that your made notes on, or at least just re-read your notes. Now repeat the above process. play some hands. post some hands.

NOW you might be ready to pick up a different poker book/author and see what he can bring to your game. But don't try to do too much all at once.

To clarify, I meant to say I've read a few books, Harrington on Hold em' both volumes. I'm just starting Kill Phill, but should I go back to Harrington until I have a lot of it down?
Sorry to get off topic (completely), but I'd rather not mess my self up on this.

#29

4th September 2014, 9:52 AM

revskip [74]

Online Poker at: Carbon

Game: Hold em

Originally Posted by thefwa

To clarify, I meant to say I've read a few books, Harrington on Hold em' both volumes. I'm just starting Kill Phill, but should I go back to Harrington until I have a lot of it down?
Sorry to get off topic (completely), but I'd rather not mess my self up on this.

I've read both of the Harrington books and done the workbook (Book 3). Great books and very useful for live play in tournaments. A little too nitty for my taste in online play but still very good info in those books specifically the zone stuff. That is probably the most important thing I took away from those books, when and why to change gears as your M diminishes. I would recommend following missjacki's advice and really focusing on the two books before adding any new reading since there is so much material there to go over. If you don't read it several times you won't really absorb all the lessons he gives. I've reread it several times and always walk away thinking about something new I had previously glossed over.

yesterday i came in 1st in the 100K satty on ACR FaceLessTimmyJR is my SN on there and i played super super tight stealing more then showdowns but as the tourny progressed i began to see more opp. that i should or could be taken. so i learned the Low ball approach it allows u to be able to see more flops if u dnt have to invest alot preflop spec with low stacks ive gotten to the point im starting to see more straights flushes and sets then ever before winning where i should is almost obsolete for me as i am learning to pick up hands and play with weird ones like J9 off Q7 or even Q3 suited from Late position in hopes of getting the odds to bet into the pot for the flush draw and i usually hit it quite often but have gotten beaten chasing when i made the mistake of packin in early with a push. i like Lag with an aggressive approach to my game make me more of a menace at the Felts lol

#31

4th September 2014, 10:47 AM

Sonaaaaa [7]

Online Poker at: PokerStars

Game: Omaha

I finished 2nd in the 100k privilege freeroll on pokerstars a few weeks back and early on I had a few coin flips. AK vs 88 etc and I got lucky on a couple of occasions. Because I built a decent stack size I was then LESS inclined to take major risks even against short stacks.

I would play the odd J9 suited and flop two pair, flush and pick up my chips from there.

The only time I played like a moron was heads up. It lasted of all of 3 hands because I couldn't let go 99 and he raised me all in and I called and he has the nuts. I should of folded because I wasn't far behind in chips and was just a silly play. Cost me $70 as I should of won it.

But to clarify I do think in micro stakes and freerolls. Luck plays a major part.

If you are playing for serious money, smart plays and intelligent folds will go along way to succeeding in MTT's.

#32

4th September 2014, 11:59 AM

rytciaq [565]

Poker at: Pokerstars

Game: NL Hold'em

I have won 618 player tournament with 10min blinds, and I have not had a better pair than Tens, no better Ace than Ace 7. That tournament motivated me to not blame anything on the luck. "The skilled ones are always lucky" . Not saying that i'm super skilled, but you get what I'm saying.

#33

5th September 2014, 6:48 PM

TheFreakShow_NY [4]

Online Poker at: FullFlush

Game: OMAHA H/L

I won $70,000 in a live tournament. I was down to 5 blinds. I shoved and got 4 callers. They checked it down on a rainbow Q27TT board. I had AQ, beat out JJ, 99, AK and AJ. Next hand I got KK and flopped top set, getting called by AK with top top and took it down. I coasted from there and played excellent poker but if I didn't get lucky to get a stack I would not have won.

#34

5th September 2014, 9:07 PM

Salvete777 [200]

Poker at: FullTilt

Game: I like all

I think that 10% of pokers is luck and onlu 90% skill. Even pro's can't win hand against totally nuts.

#35

5th September 2014, 9:16 PM

JPoling [756]

Online Poker at: Carbon/Flush

Game: Holdem

re: Poker & How often have you had to get lucky to end up winning an MTT?

Yes you do need luck. Yet, skill will always prevail. Even if we don't win. Trust me fish get lucky and win sometimes. Yet, most of those "winners" are actually losers in long run. As poker players, we are trying to minimize luck as much as we can and use skill. Luck, really is just variance basically. Yet, if you do get lucky, make sure it was just luck, not bad play and then getting lucky to win. Many times I will see people that get lucky, e.g. last night in Nightly 500GTD at carbon, guy came in last minute with 5K before late reg ended. ran it up to like 100K and was chip leader in no time all from horrible plays and getting lucky. I was like wow this guy sucks he must be a loser. Lo and behold, I sharkscoped him when he busted my AKs v 97o. Dude was HORRIBLE. I mean like seriously his graph went down like basically straight down like -$300-$400 and I think the most positive he had was like $20-$50 I just laughed it off and went to bed.